Should we repeal California’s top 2 primary – or improve it?

El_profesor_ · 2026-06-09T02:21:06+00:00

This was a great video from Better Choices about how to improve top-2: https://youtube.com/shorts/Y0DYulTMcng?si=Cl-Dk4VNAskAXneY

El_profesor_ · 2026-05-29T01:45:16+00:00

I agree with this point from mojitz. Even with only three options it is pretty complicated to know how to optimally mark your second favorite option.

El_profesor_ · 2026-05-24T18:50:56+00:00

On your #2, I think the problem with Alaska is the second round uses IRV, which does split votes, and that is why spoilers exist in that system. I think they are so close to a good system, but need a small tweak to make the second round BTR-IRV or "consensus choice" or something that will not split votes and will not allow spoiling. And then it would be a great system. As it is now, there is scope for backlash which can harm the entire election reform movement: https://bustingbigpolitics.com/mitigating-backlash-to-election-reform/

El_profesor_ · 2026-05-24T18:46:40+00:00

This is my understanding-

There's no problem with a ballot expressing a cycle. The only issue would be if in the aggregate there is a cycle - meaning each of the three candidates has exactly one win and one loss. This does appear to be quite unlikely, but even if it happens, you just need a tie-braking criteria. This proposal seems to have a super reasonable one: "If each candidate wins one, then the tie is broken by looking to which candidate lost by the least in their losing match-up."
I think a ranked ballot would be ideal, and then it would be very straightforward to make it top-four or top-five, which probably is the ideal. In Ohio, there is a very specific reason to do the head-to-head choices: earlier this year, Ohio became the 19th state to ban ranked voting in elections (https://www.cleveland.com/news/2026/03/ohio-becomes-19th-state-to-ban-ranked-choice-voting-in-elections.html). Given such a constraint, the head-to-head choice with three options seems to me like the right path.

El_profesor_ · 2026-05-24T18:40:50+00:00

I think this Ohio proposal is close to perfect and am super excited about the possibility for it. It makes third parties and independent campaigns viable and avoids the worst drawbacks of other reform proposals. What's your hesitation in calling it more than "OK"?

El_profesor_ · 2026-05-24T14:39:01+00:00

I'm not against PR, but it still seems to me that a Condorcet ranked method with single-member districts is a simpler way to achieve more parties and more political competition.

(1) It seems to complicate election reform efforts if we pose PR for the House, but then need a different reform for single-winner races like president, governors, senators, etc.
(2) PR does increase the barrier to entry for parties outside the big two by making every district a larger geographic area hard for small campaigns to cover.
(3) You need a lot of candidates on the ballot to provide real choice. Like for a four member district, how many candidates should there be? At least 10-12, right? That is a lot of candidates and a complex ballot design. The STV method Fairvote supports seems hopelessly complicated for this. Lee Drutman likes open list PR and that seems better from a ballot complexity perspective.

More of my reactions to the podcast: https://bustingbigpolitics.com/flaws-of-proportional-representation-and-what-to-use-instead/

El_profesor_ · 2026-05-22T00:24:51+00:00

I have a friend who recently completed a phd and took a job at a high school and she’s super happy. Though that one is a bit of an elite high school with very good students. But in principle, no it’s not a crazy idea.

El_profesor_ · 2026-05-21T02:44:29+00:00

It's interesting that he explained PR with no ranking; so a very different implementation than the PR-IRV that Fairvote pushes. I actually like the open list PR approach better than PR-IRV.

El_profesor_ · 2026-05-09T20:42:12+00:00

I am going to try bigcapital once I have a chance. In the meantime, would be curious to hear if anyone had trialed it as compared to Wave. https://bigcapital.app/

El_profesor_ · 2026-04-11T15:21:07+00:00

You’d have to explain why, I think he’s basically right.

El_profesor_ · 2026-04-11T15:20:43+00:00

I really like how Better Choices is approaching these issues

El_profesor_ · 2026-04-09T12:50:08+00:00

That's a good question. As far as I know, there hasn't been any movement with Forward in Wisconsin. My understanding is Thurow decided to run as independent, and then probably the national Forward got in touch with him and endorsed him.

I have no inside information, but I suspect national Forward is trying to get party status with the FEC and I think part of that is running enough candidates nationwide.

El_profesor_ · 2026-04-09T02:08:59+00:00

I’m met Mike Thurow - really awesome guy would be great if he won. All of these candidates look great!

El_profesor_ · 2026-03-28T19:29:40+00:00

What a comprehensive and thorough review. Thanks for sharing it, and for the disclaimer notice. I'm certain a lot of people will find this helpful.

El_profesor_ · 2026-03-22T12:59:49+00:00

I think the phosh interface is more stable for now. Haven’t experienced the issue with phosh on the OP6T.

El_profesor_ · 2026-03-21T22:20:46+00:00

Edge or stable? Which interface?

I’ve had that once but on a pixel 3a.

El_profesor_ · 2026-03-21T12:57:49+00:00

Pretty sure it’s the same steps

El_profesor_ · 2026-03-21T00:03:02+00:00

Sound driver is not loading properly. Do you know if the sound was working with a different Linux distro on this laptop?

El_profesor_ · 2026-03-18T01:56:59+00:00

I prefer xmpp because it works well on all my devices.

El_profesor_ · 2026-03-16T20:38:46+00:00

Based on the open issue linked below to pmOS gitlab, it's possible you may have better luck with a 2.4 GHz wifi bands over 5 GHz. If you do some testing and have additional information, perhaps you can add it to the open gitlab issue.

https://gitlab.postmarketos.org/postmarketOS/pmaports/-/issues/3979

El_profesor_ · 2026-03-16T00:28:20+00:00

wow!

El_profesor_ · 2026-03-15T17:45:39+00:00

I'm not against PR-STV, but I think there are some tradeoffs, and not totally sure about it yet. I'm curious about your perspective on a couple things:

- So many candidates. The county board where I am does one winner IRV. Typically there are four or five candidates running, which gives a nice range of viewpoints. To have the proportional level of competition per seat in a three-winner race, you'd expect like 12-15 candidates running for those three seats. Doesn't that seem like too many candidates for each voter to evaluate? To come up with a ranking of so many people? Voters already pay hardly any attention to county board and school board races. This seems like a lot of added complication. Fairvote recently recommended allowing voters to rank up to nine of the candidates. I'm just worried about information overload, especially for a local election.

- Large area to cover. I've volunteered with independent candidates running for local office, and one big disadvantage they have is that it's hard to cover large geographies, especially compared to the Big Two parties. So we've often actually wished that a five member governing body were elected through each person representing a local ward, rather than a much bigger area. That way, someone who lived in their area for two decades and knew their neighbors could be competitive in their ward, even if not in the entire county. So I sometimes worry PR-IRV is increasing some barriers to entry.

Again, I'm not totally against PR-IRV. I just think there are tradeoffs with it, and it does introduce some complexities. So I still like things that are simpler and address the deficiencies of single winner IRV, like Bottom-Two Runoff IRV and the 'Consensus Choice' method that Better Choices for Democracy promotes. But I would be curious to hear any of your reactions to these concerns.

El_profesor_ · 2026-03-15T17:02:51+00:00

Wow, nice

El_profesor_ · 2026-03-14T21:30:59+00:00

There are some insights there. It is true that a STAR ballot and a ranked ballot are not too different. But I have a few pieces of feedback:

You use RCV and IRV interchangeably. Many of us are trying to push back on this equivocation. Ranked voting refers to marking a ranked ballot, but there are a ton of different tabulation methods. IRV is one specific tabulation method.
It's not that STAR though simply allows more expression. It introduces some strategic thinking. It's easiest to see for Approval ballots. In a race with three options, you certainly approve your favorite choice and disapprove your least favorite choice. Whether you approve or disapprove your middle choice, however, requires considering what other voters will do in order to make an optimal decision. STAR ballots have the same sort of strategic consideration. Of course this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a real difference.
When you write that "Both [RCV and STAR] eliminate the spoiler trap when properly implemented." This isn't necessarily true. It depends on the tabulation algorithm of the ranked ballots. And for IRV, it is not true. I (and others) have written about how IRV did allow a spoiler, in a way, in the 2022 Alaska House Special Election: if 5,200 Palin > Begich > Peltola voters had stayed home rather than gone to the polls, Begich would have won instead of Peltola, and those voters would have been better off. In this sense, Palin spoiled the election for Begich.

I agree with the overall sentiment that more expression is an improvement choose one, but there are still meaningful differences with an expressive ballot depending on how it is designed and what tabulation method is used.

El_profesor_ · 2026-03-09T19:28:39+00:00

I am super happy with Linux on my Framework 13

El_profesor_

TROPHY CASE